Anarchistbear said:

---

He should be stripped naked and forced to crawl up University Avenue while the rest of us pelt him with bird s$it and post "likes" on Facebook.

---

...and then be forced to play FarmVille until his fingers bloody into small baby carrot sized stumps.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Does Twitter collect and sell as much personal data and photos to advertisers? Did they sell personal data to Cambridge Analytical for targeted ads? Did they embed individuals in Trump's campaign? Why did Russians choose Facebook as their platform for propaganda?

Does twitter create news and propaganda for you or just suggest people for you to follow? It seems to me Facebook is more a publisher than a platform

---

You're the one who said they control the news feed, which they don't.

2/3 of Americans get their news from
Social media. Of these 43% get their news from Facebook, 12% from Twitter

https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.hubspot.com/news-trends/two-thirds-americans-still-get-news-on-social-media%3fhs_amp=true

Anarchistbear said:

---

2/3 of Americans get their news from
Social media. Of these 43% get their news from Facebook, 12% from Twitter

https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.hubspot.com/news-trends/two-thirds-americans-still-get-news-on-social-media%3fhs_amp=true

---

43% equals control huh?

Okay here's my facebook story. I joined very late, on the urging of my family. I think I signed up in 2012. Rarely used it except to message nieces and nephews, say hi to relatives, that sort of stuff. Never posted anything.

Then as the election ramped up, a good friend told me about his cousin getting pure crazy stuff about Hillary and conspiracy stuff on FB, The discussion at that point was, "I don't get that stuff, is it real, sounds nuts". Of course we didn't know why at that point. So my buddy's cousin would sent him stuff, links and memes and he said it was just crazy shtt...and he never saw it on his feed.

So as the '16 election approached I posted stuff, not a lot. Then later after the election I started getting stuff on California secession after I posted something because Trump was elected...from 3 different groups. The info kept coming for like 3 months...and then GONE.

Turns out one of the secession groups was founded by a Russian, who went back home. Then the other groups disappeared.

Yup, I was snookered. I got first hand experience with fake news tailored for me. Then I circled back and talked to my buddy...and the whole FB fake news thing broke. And Zuckerberg and FB have been on the ropes since. Turns out they knew. All I can say is FCCK 'em. Go eat a bag of shtt.

Yogi Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

2/3 of Americans get their news from
Social media. Of these 43% get their news from Facebook, 12% from Twitter

https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.hubspot.com/news-trends/two-thirds-americans-still-get-news-on-social-media%3fhs_amp=true

---

43% equals control huh?

---

I said they control the news feed for their 2 billion users worldwide which they do- your newsfeed is "tailored" to your tastes. In the US, the 43% who cite them as a primary news source= potentially a hundred million people who get their news from them . Fox News has 3 million watchers. I'd say that was pretty dominant.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

What does she hope to accomplish by forbidding Apple from offering apps in its own App Store? Or Amazon from selling its own branded products (I'm not sure she realizes the difference between Amazon Basics, Fulfilled by Amazon, regular Amazon sales and the marketplace).

---

Oh yeah, I didn't notice that part before. That seems unworkable. It's more the breaking up of mergers that seems, if not practical, at least a reasonable extension of antitrust.

Miss this guy.
Feel good moments listening to someone who makes sense again.



Make America make sense again #MAMSA

Which candidate is smart like him?

It's good to go back to days when there was intelligence up top.
Like, maybe there can be hope at the end of this long dark rainbow.



You don't have to agree with every policy and decision of his.
But you do have to admit that he handled himself 1000x better than the current jackass.

Biden stalling worries me.
Low energy?
Not sure?
Dude, if you wanna be president, you gotta get after it.
Past his prime?

I was encouraged watching him in some of the above clips sitting there listening to Barack, maybe some of that rubbed off on him. We'll see.

Bernie Sanders looks like the clear front runner to me. His energized base would clean Biden's clock in early primaries. Those two are getting double the polling of others.

I think a Sanders / Harris ticket would be pretty formidable.

Re: Sanders/Harris:
I fear too "radical" to beat a xenophobic middle America.
He carries the label of "socialist" and she is a black "foreigner" from India and Jamaica.

I think Bloomberg said it best:

"It's essential that we nominate a Democrat who will be in the strongest position to defeat Donald Trump and bring our country back together," he wrote. "We cannot allow the primary process to drag the party to an extreme that would diminish our chances in the general election and translate into 'Four More Years.'"

Middle America thinks they are extreme. Or at least trump would be able to market them as such, with his fear mongering.

Which then begs the question, who among the candidates will be best able to stand toe to toe vs trump in debates and not look like someone middle America needs to fear?

Amy Klobuchar.

Can she debate strongly vs him?
Can he attack her personally without looking like the complete jerk he actually is?

There was already a strong anti-Hillary crowd before trump came along. The GOP had assailed her for decades. So it seemed she was fair game. How's trump gonna insult Amy? I dunno, but he'll find a way. I just think it'll come off poorly and backfire. She seems wholesome and innocent. Harris is no different (well, she slept with Willie Brown, not a plus) but she's black, and I don't think America is going that route again so soon. Trump has turned up the racist mindset in this country big time! Like, Obama being elected brought out all the closet racists and closet racist thoughts. Trump has amplified it with a megaphone. I think for this reason Harris is a losing candidate. Amy is like Snow White (pun intended).

Bloomberg would be the last person to ask who the Democrats should nominate- being a guy who polled at 1%. The whole notion of the economic conservative/social liberal as a sizable demographic is a rich person's delusion.

Sanders did well in the Midwest beating Clinton in Wisconsin and Michigan. These are strong union states and he plays well there. Also raising taxes on wealth, universal health care and access to higher education are popular issues and ones he brought into the mainstream. The people are ahead of the parties in these matters.

If Bernie can beat Trump, I'm for that.

I guess I'm part of the 1% (economic conservative, social liberal).

Updated list:

The following 16 elected officials and notable public figures14 Democrats and 2Republicanshave filed to run for president with the Federal Election Commission or announced exploratory committees.
* Cory Booker (D), a U.S. senator from New Jersey, announced that he was running for president on February 1, 2019.[3]
* Pete Buttigieg (D), the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, announced that he was running for president on January 23, 2019.[4]
* Julian Castro (D), a former U.S. secretary of housing and urban development and San Antonio mayor, formally announced his candidacy on January 12, 2019.[5]
* John Delaney (D), a former U.S. representative from Maryland, filed to run for president on August 10, 2017.
* Tulsi Gabbard (D), a U.S. representative from Hawaii, announced that she had decided to run for president on January 11, 2019.[6]
* Kirsten Gillibrand (D), a U.S. senator from New York, announced that she was running for president on January 15, 2019.[7]
* Kamala Harris (D), a U.S. senator from California, announced that she was running for president on January 21, 2019.[8]
* John Hickenlooper (D), a former governor of Colorado, announced that he was running for president on March 4, 2019.[9]
* Jay Inslee (D), the governor of Washington, announced that he was running for president on March 1, 2019.[10]
* Amy Klobuchar (D), a U.S. senator from Minnesota, formally announced she was running for president on February 10, 2019.[11]
* Bernie Sanders (I), a U.S. senator from Vermont, announced that he was running for president on February 19, 2019.[12]
* President Donald Trump (R) filed to run for re-election in 2020 on January 20, 2017.
* Elizabeth Warren (D), U.S. senator from Massachusetts, announced she had formed an exploratory committee on December 31, 2018.[13] She formally announced she was running for president on February 9, 2019.
* Bill Weld (R), a former governor of Massachusetts, announced that he had formed an exploratory committee on February 15, 2019.[14]
* Marianne Williamson (D), an author and lecturer, announced she was running for president on January 28, 2019.[15]
* Andrew Yang (D), an entrepreneur and author from New York, filed to run for president on November 6, 2017.

Unlisted: Beto O'Rorke and Starbucks Schultz

Anarchistbear said:

---

Bloomberg would be the last person to ask who the Democrats should nominate- being a guy who polled at 1%. The whole notion of the economic conservative/social liberal as a sizable demographic is a rich person's delusion.

Sanders did well in the Midwest beating Clinton in Wisconsin and Michigan. These are strong union states and he plays well there. Also raising taxes on wealth, universal health care and access to higher education are popular issues and ones he brought into the mainstream. The people are ahead of the parties in these matters.

---

Good Lord, I agreed with an Anarchistbear post. Time to revisit my assumptions.

concordtom said:

---

If Bernie can beat Trump, I'm for that.

I guess I'm part of the 1% (economic conservative, social liberal).

---

Economic conservative means undertaxing the wealthy and building up huge deficits to bankrupt the social safety net. Is that what you support?

It would be fun to watch Bernie and trump fight in debates.
I'm confident Bernie would not stutter under trump's weight!

Bernie needs to get in front of the whole "socialist" label, though.
That's gonna get miles and miles for the GOP.

And when I say "fun" I'm looking for someone who can deliver some verbal uppercuts and knockout blows to the Orange Menace.

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

If Bernie can beat Trump, I'm for that.

I guess I'm part of the 1% (economic conservative, social liberal).

---

Economic conservative means undertaxing the wealthy and building up huge deficits to bankrupt the social safety net. Is that what you support?

---

Not to me.
It means managing the federal budget in a balanced manner.
No more deficits!
And obviously, higher taxes of some manner will be required. I'd also decrease defense spending.
Don't put words in my mouth, please.
It can mean that to you, though.

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

If Bernie can beat Trump, I'm for that.

I guess I'm part of the 1% (economic conservative, social liberal).

---

Economic conservative means undertaxing the wealthy and building up huge deficits to bankrupt the social safety net. Is that what you support?

---

Not to me.
It means managing the federal budget in a balanced manner.
No more deficits!
And obviously, higher taxes of some manner will be required. I'd also decrease defense spending.
Don't put words in my mouth, please.
It can mean that to you, though.

---

It means that to every elected conservative in my adult life.

I can say to me a turnip is an apple but that doesn't make it so. I am an economic liberal and i agree with your economic views as stated above. So do all the Democratic Presidents in my adult life.

Just goes to show how labels can lead folks astray.
(Not saying that it's either you or me who is astray.)
Po-TAY-to
Po-TAH-to

Not really.

We have actual conservatives enacting economic policy. What they do is what it is.

dajo9 said:

---

Bernie Sanders looks like the clear front runner to me. His energized base would clean Biden's clock in early primaries. Those two are getting double the polling of others.

I think a Sanders / Harris ticket would be pretty formidable.

---

I thought maybe Bernie was too old and carried too much bad blood with Hillary voters from the 2016 primary. But that hasn't played out in the polling . . . in general, people still like him (and just as with Obama, Hillary voters seem to be able to get over their grievances for the sake of the party). Adding someone like Harris to the ticket would help his weak areas.

dajo9 said:

---

Not really.

We have actual conservatives enacting economic policy. What they do is what it is.

---

Reagan was really successful at defining "economic conservative" as something other than what conservatives actually did.

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Not really.

We have actual conservatives enacting economic policy. What they do is what it is.

---

Reagan was really successful at defining "economic conservative" as something other than what conservatives actually did.

---

True. I refuse to accept the lies. Concordtom should see it for what it is.

Sanders is too old so is Biden. The difference is that elections are about the future and Sanders for a while now has offered a different vision of the future. Biden offers the past.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Sanders is too old so is Biden. The difference is that elections are about the future and Sanders for a while now has offered a different vision of the future. Biden offers the past.

---

Right, I just thought maybe one of the younger candidates could take Bernie's mantle and run further with it than he did. Not yet, though I guess there is still time.

I'm fine with Bernie. He signed papers saying he'd run as a Democrat. If he gets the nomination I'd like him to do something similar to Pelosi's pledge to pass the torch in 4 years. I'd like Bernie to pick a running mate who can carry the torch and win the POTUS job later.

Sanders-Harris sounds like a good ticket to me balancing East Coast and West Coast, gender, generation and diversity. I think that would be a very good 1-2 punch and yes, we're gonna need clapback and punching ability against the GOP. Bernie and Kamala aren't afraid to mix it up and in the post-Trump transition (chasing down Russkie hackers) it will be invaluable. Of course Kamala Harris might just jump over Bernie. I like Harris but don't wish to see the hate she'll face like Obama.

I liked Amy K and her midwestern charm but I don't think her middle of the road pragmatism will cut it. Too soft and squishy, too open to compromise with fascists and non-logical GOP wing nuts.

Otherwise I say go with a younger candidate, the new generation. Get some fresh idea and someone who has a stake in the future.

Whoa...this says the Russians are aware of US retaliation for hacking the U.S. election and indirectly links to Facebook. Translation: the Russians are trying to build a cyber wall because the U.S. will retaliate, and the internet is an open border.

Bill to route internet through Russian servers spurs protest

Quote:

---

MOSCOW (AP) Several thousand people have rallied in Moscow to protest legislation they fear could lead to widespread internet censorship for Russian users.

The sanctioned rally on Sunday was organized in response to a bill in parliament that would route all internet traffic through servers in Russia, making virtual private networks (VPNs) ineffective.

The proposed measure also would create a division in Russia's agency that regulates communications to oversee traffic control and routing.

The bill has passed the first of three readings in the Duma, the lower house of parliament.
Advocates say the bill is intended to address concerns that Russia could be cut off if the United States applies a new cybersecurity doctrine in an offensive maneuver.

---

Bernie makes more sense to me as a VP than Prez. He's been in politics for a long time but I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone credit him with being the driving force behind any legislation. My sense is thst he doesn't play well with others and would be horrible at governing. He likes talking though and obviously has some ideas that resonate so maybe he can be a talkative VP.

Harris at the top of the ticket could work. I'm not sure how she would do at governing either but I would have more faith in her than Bernie.

Of course, if voters could get over the fact that she dated Willie Brown because apparently having dated a black guy is disqualifying for people like ConcordTom.

Another Bear said:

---

I'm fine with Bernie. He signed papers saying he'd run as a Democrat. If he gets the nomination I'd like him to do something similar to Pelosi's pledge to pass the torch in 4 years. I'd like Bernie to pick a running mate who can carry the torch and win the POTUS job later.

Sanders-Harris sounds like a good ticket to me balancing East Coast and West Coast, gender, generation and diversity. I think that would be a very good 1-2 punch and yes, we're gonna need clapback and punching ability against the GOP. Bernie and Kamala aren't afraid to mix it up and in the post-Trump transition (chasing down Russkie hackers) it will be invaluable. Of course Kamala Harris might just jump over Bernie. I like Harris but don't wish to see the hate she'll face like Obama.

I liked Amy K and her midwestern charm but I don't think her middle of the road pragmatism will cut it. Too soft and squishy, too open to compromise with fascists and non-logical GOP wing nuts.

Otherwise I say go with a younger candidate, the new generation. Get some fresh idea and someone who has a stake in the future.

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

trump Bernie makes more sense to me as a VP than Prez. He's been in politics for a long time but I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone credit him with being the driving force behind any legislation. My sense is thst he doesn't play well with others and would be horrible at governing. He likes talking though and obviously has some ideas that resonate so maybe he can be a talkative VP.

Harris at the top of the ticket could work. I'm not sure how she would do at governing either but I would have more faith in her than Bernie.

Of course, if voters could get over the fact that she dated Willie Brown because apparently having dated a black guy is disqualifying for people like ConcordTom.

---

I'm good with either Harris or Bernie at the top of the ticket. I wish Bernie was younger but I like that he's been very consistent about policy, never shied away from the socialist label. I like Harris and don't care about sleeping with Willie Brown (I blame Willie on this) but do care about being connected to the Brown-Burton machine.

Policy wise I'm okay with Brown-Burton but the machine aspect can be unsavory. Also, Harris recently announced she's a democratic socialist. That's okay but she didn't use that term when running for CA AG, while Bernie hasn't changed at all. So it seems a bit like pandering although I'm guessing policy wise it's not that different.

The Brown-Burton machine always traded business issues for social issues and I'm fine with that, actually think it's common sense and compromise...EXCEPT when things tilt too far pro-business and pro-corporation (not their fault) like the current zero-regulation fervor. Then you get pro-business look the other way mistakes, like the loan dirivatives scandal. BIG mistakes. Mistakes from the lack of over-sight and regulation that corporate Dems allowed. Allowing some on compromise is unavoidable...but can't look the other way. Yes, Obama went easy on the banks. I understand why, fix the economy and war situation first...still nothing?

Agree Bernie might not play well and weak on governance...but then I'd advocate for a VP that does much of the heavy lifting, like Pence or Cheney.

dajo9 said:

---

Bernie Sanders looks like the clear front runner to me. His energized base would clean Biden's clock in early primaries. Those two are getting double the polling of others.

I think a Sanders / Harris ticket would be pretty formidable.

---

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

dajo9 said:

---

Not really.

We have actual conservatives enacting economic policy. What they do is what it is.

---

It's not financially conservative to run trillion dollar surpluses.
They call themselves conservative, but they are not.
Don't you also call them conservatives! They are fiscally irresponsible!